Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. The spec, being cpanspec generated, is nice and clean.
I note that 1.28 is out, released well before you posted this review request. I checked the upstream changelog and it doesn't seem that there are any functional changes, so I'll go ahead and review the current version. However, beware that if you do update, there may be some dependency issues because packages reqired for the test suite are no longer listed in Build.PL.
I note that the test suite skips one test:
t/99-pod.t ........... skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD
Generally this is a maintainer test anyway and its value to us is somewhat minimal, but I would suggest that you add a build dependency on perl(Test::Pod) anyway, because you'll at least be alerted of any issues with the documentation. The package still builds fine if you do this.
If you fix that one minor issue, I'll approve this package and sponsor you.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
3834e317e49e7bee4133f82d41cbc43e8eda92c6cdcde6c282021c083e0dc8f0
Locale-Maketext-Gettext-1.27.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext) = 1.27
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext::Functions) = 0.13
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext::Functions::_EMPTY) = 0.01
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext::Functions::_EMPTY::i_default) = 0.01
perl-Locale-Maketext-Gettext = 1.27-1.fc12
=
/usr/bin/perl
perl >= 0:5.008
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
perl(Encode)
perl(File::Spec::Functions)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext)
perl(Locale::Maketext::Gettext::Functions)
perl(base)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
perl(warnings)
? %check is present and all tests pass:
All tests successful.
Files=13, Tests=350, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.10 usr 0.02 sys + 0.93 cusr
0.26 csys = 1.31 CPU)
However, one test is skipped due to a missing build dependency.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

Sorry, could you provide links to the updated spec and src.rpm? All I see is the original 1.27-1. (If that's not the same 1.27-1 that I originally reviewed, now I suppose you know why we request that you increase Release: when you modify your submission.)

Looks good to me, thanks.
APPROVED
I've clicked the necessary button in FAS, so you should be able to make your CVS request as soon as that propagates through the system. That generally happens within an hour. Please let me know if you need further assistance getting your package built and pushed out. It's simplest to contact me on IRC in #fedora-devel (tibbs or tibbs|h) but you are also welcome to email me.
Also, I note that there are a couple of other perl packages submitted bu Red Hat folks; I checked and it seems as if all three of you are in the docs group. If you know what's going on, or you'd like me to help with that, please let me know.

Thanks very much.
I'm having a little trouble at the moment, as my address in Bugzilla is different from my FAS address, but I'll get that sorted out. If I have any further drama after that, I'll be sure to take you up on your offer for extra help! :)
We're trying (again) to get some of the docs group involved with packaging some of the modules that are relevant to the tools we use -- so these are the other perl packages that you've noticed. We're all (obviously) new at this, so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Bug 521723 and Bug 521724 as well and let Scott and Ryan know if they're on the right track, we'd all be really grateful :)
Cheers
Rudi